I dug up an old Charles Krauthammer column that sheds light into the man's obsessive antipathy toward Obama. The column was a response to Obama's 2006 announcement that he was considering entering the presidential race. Krauthammer encouraged Obama to enter--but simply to polish his credentials in preparation for a future run. For Obama to actually win in '08, Krauthammmer wrote, would require a "miracle."
Krauthammer begins his column, dated Oct. 27, 2006, by giving the junior senator some advice:
He should run in '08. He will lose in '08. And the loss will put him irrevocably on a path to the presidency.
Those familiar with Krauthammer's more recent columns may be surprised at his praise for Obama:
[H]e has the persona: an affecting personal history, fine intelligence, remarkable articulateness and refreshing charm.
Ah, the a-word. But you can put your suspicions to rest, for he has this to say:
Like many Americans, I long to see an African American ascend to the presidency. It would be an event of profound significance, a great milestone in the unfolding story of African Americans achieving their rightful, long-delayed place in American life.
Krauthammer goes on to explain that he thinks Obama's race will be more of a plus for him than a minus, because the voters excited about the prospect of a black president outnumber the racists. But he still thinks Obama will lose, because "The country will simply not elect a novice in wartime." Nevertheless, he adds, "if by some miracle he hits the lottery and wins in '08, well, then it is win-win-win."
The full column can be read here.
Some thoughts. The "miracle" of Obama's rise to the presidency was never anywhere near as improbable as pundits like Krauthammer liked to believe. (Al Franken, who previously had shown a weird knack for correctly predicting future nominees, suggested as early as 2005 that Obama would be the next president--despite the fact that Obama at the time had told the press he had no intention of running in '08.) Does the egg on Krauthammer's face maybe have something to do with his incessant hostility toward Obama ever since?
Of the 37 columns Krauthammer has written for The Washington Post since Obama's taking office, only three make no direct mention of Obama. The rest are overwhelmingly negative, usually in a very sneering, personal way. He has referred to the President's "naivete," "fecklessness," "brazenness," "supreme self-regard," "messianic" view of himself, and use of "magic to make words mean almost anything." He manages to attack Obama even when he agrees with him! For example, his column on stem-cell research must set some kind of record for the comic contortions Krauthammer engages in to bash the President for taking positions he supports. Krauthammer's motto should be, "Even when Obama is right, he's wrong."
You don't see this relentless obsession with Obama in any of the Post's other conservative columnists. George Will, for example, has written 45 columns for the Post since Obama took office, and 21 of them don't mention Obama at all. Furthermore, Will usually sticks to policy discussion, only occasionally meandering into personal attack against the President.
Krauthammer, despite admitting that he is "not religious," frequently resorts to religious metaphors when talking about Obama. In his world, the election of Obama is a "miracle," and supporters view him as "divine." Is it not possible Krauthammer is upset about the failure of his Nostradamus-like insights in 2006?
